• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Rtx 3080 lower quality capacitor Issue

Have been doing a bit of testing with my Gigabyte gaming and found that it doesnt like anything past +100 core and gets unstable upwards of 2055 boost. Will continue more real world stuff with the overclock to see if it produces any instability but to be honest im not that unhappy if it can be stable at 2000.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
As Grim said, a 5-10% difference. IMO This is noticeable, especially when at 4k/VR where you really need the extra frames.
Click to expand...

Honestly when I get it I'm probably going to do the underclock/undervolt so I drop 3fps for 100 watts less power consumption. If I was running 4k I 100% wouldn't, like you said it makes more of a difference when at 4k and VR if the headset is a large resolution.
 
Lastof said:
Right now, not really.

  • We know the review and early shipped units of the Trio has a 5-1 arrangement of the larger capcitors to 10 smaller capacitors.
  • We know EVGA said they found that for their FTW3 card they needed a 4-2 arrangement, but that their XC3 was fine with 5-1.
  • We don't know if the current Trios are shipping the same as the initial ones, or if MSI picked up on the issue and changed at some point (which might explain the nearly 0 numbers of them that seem to be out in the wild).
  • We don't know what exact difference between the XC3 and FTW3 means one was fine and the other needed more, and how that translates to the Trio.
  • We don't know that the capacitors are the only issue, since some people are reporting to have similar problems with suposidly "good" layout ASUS Cards and FE Cards
Its a developing issue, and while it seems fairly certain that the capacitors are part of what is causing it, it might be more than that.

Personally I suspect it'll turn out to either be the 30% "ok" Bin 0 chips or the 10% "really good" Bin 2 chips that are susceptible this issue (either because they can't stay stable at higher boosts, or can boost higher and draw more current which the power delivery can't handle). EVGA just said they found the problem in testing, not that it affected all the cards, and from what we've heard AIB's didn't have time to actually Bin the chips themselves before starting manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Interesting to learn that nvidia have ditched their pre-binning.

He also reveals what we already know but never confirmed that press samples are typically bin 2.
 
No one has promised that the GPU should run at ~2000+mhz clock. Each vendor has a stated base and boost clock, which is a specification that it looks like they do meet, as well as the opportunistic boosting algorithm which is advertised to try (but no promises) to push things further. It sounds like the algorithm is just a little too gung-ho. If a software update was released that bumped clocks down a little, so long as the card is stable at boost clocks under the vendor's definition of "normal operating conditions" the marketing promise is still kept.

The outrage just sounds like unjustified/unreasonable expectations. No one has stated that people should expect any clock speed beyond boost (GPU boost is a promise that the card will try, and try it does), let alone ~2000+mhz (which in itself is a rather arbitrary round number) so why are they?

Also from what I've read so far, we don't know that a problem lies with the caps, its purely speculation. EVGA made some commentary (which is in no way comprehensive) and the more credible Youtube "experts" have argued that no cap type is potentially worse than the other, they both have pros and cons.
 
chrcoluk said:
Did he disclose these crashes in his review, if not why not?

Its kind of like the 3.5 gig fiasco again where the reviewers only spoke out after everything went public
Click to expand...

He did not

most reviewers failed to mention their cards were crashing, it's quite deceptive if you ask me
 
Name said:
People who have spent that much money on new hardware may have to make their cards under perform to prevent a crash to desktop. Is this worse than the scandal where cards were advertised as 4GB but there was only 3.5GB on the board?
Click to expand...

That's false. The 970 had 4GB, however the last 512MB was slower to access due to the cut down number of shaders and the memory controller design compared to the 980.
 
Grim5 said:
He did not

most reviewers failed to mention their cards were crashing, it's quite deceptive if you ask me
Click to expand...

Very disappointing for them to do that, curious what the excuse will be, "Oh we were told by the manufacturer its a pre-production model issue".

Which other reviewers failed to disclose their cards crashing?
 
6Ny5ZMm

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom